A new survey by the Climate Institute on attitudes to climate change shows the majority are concerned for the environment, but confusion reigns supreme.

After years of vigorous and at times toxic debate, more than 1000 people surveyed gave an amazing array of answers …. Sixty-nine per cent thought humans were causing it. But when asked to explain the Gillard Government’s carbon pricing scheme, focus groups returned blank stares.

The reality is of course that climate scientists have a limited understanding of our climate, and that most Australians are suspicious that a tax can change the weather.

Try not to throw up reading the actual report: Climate of The Nation. For starters, the low contrast colors in baby blue and penitentiary-grey-brown are designed not to be read, but to be absorbed. The layout and feel is very much the style of a baby formula brochure. Bask in the “atmosphere” as you scan, but bring out your magnifying glass if you actually want to read it. The sickly sweet, staged photos announce that The Climate Institute has money to waste — your money. Only the most ultra trendoid marketing and PR agencies need apply for the job of selling The Carbon Pox to the nation.

What do these results mean? Who knows? I can’t find the actual survey questions, so at this stage: nothing. I mean “two thirds say climate change is occurring”. Really? (So 36% think Climate Sameness is a possibility?) The language and the mindless labels wait like trolls under the bridge to suck any sane analysis out of loaded questions on a road to nowhere.

Nearly all skeptics think the climate is changing, so when faced with an inanity like “do you believe in Climate Change?”, a skeptic can be either literal and straight, or play the game where they try to guess what the researchers were really attempting to find.

On the plus side, the way I read these results suggests:

That 45% of the population is not concerned about climate change.

Only 28% support the carbon pricing laws. (28%? that’s the number today of the ALP primary vote). The 28% rises when people are falsely told that all the money goes to households and the poor renewables lot. How many would support it if they knew 10% was feeding the UN bureaucrats, and another large slab would go to major financial brokers, auditors, lawyers, accountants, media, marketing and advertising campaigns? (Can we get some lawyers onto this point? Is this false advertising coming from The Climate Institute? Can they really claim that “all the revenue goes to support households, business and clean, renewable energy”?)

On the down side, we still have 20 years of propaganda to overcome and really only about 10% of the population are aware of just how scandalously vacant this issue and the Green NGO’s are. There is a lot of work to do.

“KEY FINDINGS

Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) agreed that climate change is occurring. Seventeen per cent said that they did not believe that climate change is occurring; almost a fifth (19 per cent) were unsure. A fifth agreed that humans are the main cause, with 49 per cent saying it was due to a mixture of human causes and natural cycles.

Most Australians (54 per cent) are still concerned about climate change. This has dropped in terms of breadth and intensity over time but there is still only around 10 per cent who see no need for action.

Highest climate impacts of concern were: A more polluted planet (80 per cent), a more polluted Australia and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef (79 per cent each), more droughts affecting crop production and food supply (78 per cent), and animal and plant species becoming extinct (75 per cent). Water shortages in Australian cities continues to be a concern, with 71 per cent of respondents identifying it as an issue this year, down from more than 90 per cent in 2008 and 2010.

Almost two-thirds (66 per cent) thought there are too many conflicting opinions for the public to be sure about the claims made around climate change.

Australians don’t think business and the media are doing a good job at addressing climate change.
They get net disapproval negative ratings of 21 and 22 respectively, a rate far worse than the Federal Government’s at minus 6.

Support for the carbon pricing laws of 28 per cent (52 per cent opposition) rises to 47 per cent (29 per cent opposition) when it is correctly explained that all the revenue raised goes to support households, business and clean, renewable energy.

Increasing the proportion of energy from renewables and greater energy efficiency from industry were perceived as the most effective emissions reduction policies (with 43 per cent of respondents giving these a 9 or 10 ranking in a scale where 10 meant ‘most effective).

Eighty one per cent placed solar energy within their top three preferred energy options. Wind was the second most preferred option with 59 per cent. Two-thirds placed coal in their least preferred three options, slightly more than nuclear at 64 per cent.

Gender and age were significant indicators with males and those over 55 less concerned about climate change and less supportive of actions.

Less than half of respondents (44 per cent) thought the Coalition would repeal the carbon laws.

Twice as many respondents agreed that Labor has an effective plan to reduce emissions (28 per cent agreed) compared to the Coalition (14 per cent).

More than half (52 per cent) think that Australia should be a leader in finding solutions to climate change with only 23 per cent disagreeing. This is little changed from April 2010 polling when 55 per cent of respondents agreed, down from 69 per cent in February 2009.

A minority (37 per cent) agree that Australia shouldn’t act until major emitters like China and the United States do. Twenty eight per cent agreed with this proposition in February 2009.”

Any sane Government would defund this propaganda machine on day one. It’s not about “serving the people”.

UPDATE: It is not clear The Climate Institute receives government funding at all- (it’s not the Climate Change Institute which I was mistakenly thinking of when I wrote the sentence above). Though Australia Post (why?) is listed as a “partner”. The main partner is Westpac. Others include KPMG, Pacific Hydro, Mirvac, Ogilvy Earth, AGL, Jemena, GE, and “better place”. (source: The Climate Institute — Partners)

It’s a private think tank set up in 2005. It gets about $2m a year from the Poola Foundation.

Board of Directors

Mr Mark Wootton, (Chair) Farmer and Director, Poola Foundation

Dr. Hugh Saddler, Managing Director, Energy Strategies Pty Ltd

Dr. Graeme Pearman, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

Professor Tony McMichael, Director, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population[5]

I feel sorry for the Labor party…not! They are trying to sell a turd. Julia has molded it into an attractive shape, sprayed it with deodorant, given it a smile and put clothes on it, but it’s still a turd. Everyone in the Labor party has touched it and they can’t get the smell off their hands. Can’t wait for the election.

I think these people are saying that Australians want renewable energy.

I’d like magic tim tams or ice creams, like they have on the ads.

Atmospheric CO2 conc is a resultant of many inputs that each have various rise times. We could imagine and attempt an infinite number of types of inputs. The main determinant of CO2 conc is earth sea temperature. The determinate of earth sea weather climate temperature as can be pretended to be measured by us is solar and the internal activity of the earth which results from it’s tidal friction and composition. It’s a one off entity of molten tectonic magnetic nuclear fissive chaos.

No experimentation can be done. All theories are wonders. No further correspondence need be entered.

Magic Icecream and TimTam Flannery are a bit easy I WANT the impossible- a Politician with some BALLS and some BRAINS,I know it’s not likely to happen but it is theoreticly possible just like an out break of common sense.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is Life Cheers

I’m concerned by the fact the ALP intends to raise the carbon tax from $23 per tonne to $350 per tonne by 2050. What we’re hit with now is barely the start of it. How are pensioners and low income families going to deal with that? It’s bad enough now!

I’m not at all concerned as I won’t be around in 2050 … but all of those CAGW fools “doing it for the children” had better be concerned for the future that they are leaving behind “for the children” … but then ju-LIAR and her socialist cronies will be gone in a little over 12 months so its likely to go from $23 to $0 /ton.

I’m concerned by the fact the ALP intends to raise the carbon tax from $23 per tonne to $350 per tonne by 2050.

Wrong. The carbon price will be determined by the market from July 1, 2015 onwards. It is the treasury’s estimate that it will be $350 by 2050.

What we’re hit with now is barely the start of it. How are pensioners and low income families going to deal with that? It’s bad enough now!

Pensioners and low income families are actually better off now because the compensation they receive, which the government gets from selling carbon permits, exceeds the cost rises caused by those permits.

From July 1, 2015 the tax free threshold will be increased to $21,400 which helps low income earners the most.

The revenue from the carbon price will in part be given to pensioners as a new component of their pension payment. Just as they received lump sump payments this year and will get the same thing again next year.

More repetition of the rhetoric from the chief pom-pom girl for the Labor government.

The compensation will not come close to covering the overall costs that the carbon tax will place on everything. Just covering increases in a person’s power bill is not even going to come close to match the overall price increases that will flow through the economy.

The increase of the tax free threshold is just taking care of bracket creep that has been going on for some time. Giving back what should not have been taken in the first place is hardly commendable.

Two years of lump sum payments versus perpetual cost increases. That can only seem like a good deal to someone who has no ability for analytical thought …

Even with the introduction of the ETS and the market setting the price, there is a minimum floor price of $15/tonne CO2e. So much for ‘the market’ setting the price, especially as ‘the market’ overseas has the price well below $15 at the moment.

A salient lesson was the Chicago Carbon Exchange that Al Gore was a part of – it folded (or he made money selling it) when the price of CO2 was $0.05c/ton. Would our Government get the other $14.95 the ‘polluters’ will be forced to pay?

Pensioners and low income families are actually better off now because the compensation they receive, which the government gets from selling carbon permits, exceeds the cost rises caused by those permits.

I’m a single income earner, supporting my wife. We’re empty nesters, and our home is our super. We have around $70K debt. I earn around $50K PA ( between 50 and 60 hours PW, so I’m not a bludge)r. Can you tell me where MY compensation is coming from? My utilitiy bills are fast approaching double what I was paying two years ago, with more increases obvious with the CO2 tax. I ask again: where is my compensation coming from? Tax cuts? Don’t make me laugh.

My mother is 93, and on a pension. Her utility bills have also nearly doubled since this Government ( Gillard: it’s even more if we go back to 2007) came to office. Her pension has increased by less than 10%. With the so-called compensation, which was around $220. She refuses to turn on her heating, because her bills are too high. In the Dandenongs. In winter. Perhaps this is Gillars’ way of lowering her pension commitments; kill off the pensioners.

I reckon the beat thing is for Gillard, and her increasiungly isolated followers, is to move to Tassie and secede. Let her try her “experiments” down there. They were silly enough to give Mad Bob a senate seat, so they’re probably silly enough for Julia.

Pensioners and low income families are actually better off now because the compensation they receive, which the government gets from selling carbon permits, exceeds the cost rises caused by those permits.

From July 1, 2015 the tax free threshold will be increased to $21,400 which helps low income earners the most.

The revenue from the carbon price will in part be given to pensioners as a new component of their pension payment. Just as they received lump sump payments this year and will get the same thing again next year.

The so-called compensation will eventually come to an end, but this new tax will be with us for evermore, in one form or another. The Coalition will never get rid of this tax without replacing it with some other tax. Don’t believe anything Tony Abbott says about anything, his party is just as bad (if not worse) than the ‘Labor Party’, but they do have one thing in common – they hate the working class.
The wording and vibe of your post resembles that of a government propaganda brochure, one intended to placate angry citizens. You don’t actually work for those crooks and fools do you?

The questions to not ask about the future trends. They make no distinction between those who think without action we are heading for a catastrophe, and those who think there is a link between CO2 & climate, but not a significant one to justify policy. In this it is just another variant of “97% of climate scientists” survey.
Nowhere is the survey open to the possibility that the science might be either wrong or lack the substantial weight of evidence, like say, is required to convict a criminal. Nor is raised the possibility that even though a global policy might be theoretically plausible, either
(a) Australia going it alone is useless
or
(b) there are no people competent to effectively enact a policy over generations.

Gender and age were significant indicators with males and those over 55 less concerned about climate change and less supportive of actions.

I know where this is going, just a few posts back one of our resident warmists posted a link explaining that conservative white males (CWM) were to blame for skepticism. Before that John Brookes claimed “Emeritus Syndrome”

Now we are going to be attacked by bigots and through age discrimination. Never trust anyone under 30!

I work for the government (well, part-time at the moment anyway), but I am not so foolish as to think that there is anything of substance to any of the claims made by those hypocrites who expect others to make all of the sacrifices while they jet around the world attending worthless conferences. Don’t condemn ALL government employees, we are not all the same!

“Although many believe climate science is contested and confused, scientists have been putting the puzzle together for over 150 years. Year on year the evidence has been piling up, so that by 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming was no longer in any doubt. Human activity, they said, is ‘very likely’
the main driver.(13)

Today, the vast majority of climate experts—more than 95 per cent—agree that humans are changing the climate.(14)”

The Climate Institute’s research is massively superior than a recent survey on opinions to science by a research student at the Psychology Department of the University of Western Australia. Now taken down, I analyze the questions here.
By the way, the departmental professor is Stephan Lewandowsky.

Clearly, it seems, or so those brain-dead bew-row-kats think, any true any answer to a scientific question (rather than the results of an experiment) requires everyone and anyone to contribute their opinion for the answer to achieve consensus; how stupid of me to think otherwise.

.
The purpose of focus groups is to gain information about where and how to target future spinpropaganda advertising.
This one is no different.

The results as offered do not tell us much about the “where”, though no doubt they got the information. Obviously their future target will not be CWMs. If we were to assume the target will be the opposite of CWMs, then expect a lot of material aimed at Lara Bingle clones.

On the “how” they have been much more forthcoming, and the results are included in bullet point 3 above:

Highest climate impacts of concern were: A more polluted planet (80 per cent), a more polluted Australia and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef (79 per cent each), more droughts affecting crop production and food supply (78 per cent), and animal and plant species becoming extinct (75 per cent). Water shortages in Australian cities continues to be a concern, with 71 per cent of respondents identifying it as an issue this year, down from more than 90 per cent in 2008 and 2010.

So we can expect a flood of doom and gloom “scientific papers” and “official reports” from the CSIRO and BoM on:

pollution
the Great Barrier Reef
droughts
extinctions
water supply.

Of far greater interest to readers here (and the Coalition) should be bullet point 10:

Less than half of respondents (44 per cent) thought the Coalition would repeal the carbon laws.

Which I think pretty conclusively demonstrates that until and unless the Coalition scrap their entire current “Climate Change” and “Renewable Energy Targets” policies, people are going to remain very skeptical of their true intentions if elected.

Was at an IPA function the other week in Brisbane, a few of us were chatting after. The subject of when will the coalition declare their position that AGW is crap came up.

Well this won’t happen before the next election!

And it won’t happen after it either because about half of the Coalition supports a price on carbon pollution.

The Direct Action policy should be scrapped. If the coalition perpetuates the scam then us sceptics must condemn them also…it would be the right thing to do.

That is the Coalition’s policy, they actually believe in cutting carbon emissions by the same amount as the government by 2020. They just want to do it using a method that will cost 5 – 10 times as much.

One of the biggest problems in countering the ignorance and widespread erroneous facts is trying to argue with facts and analytically with an audience that has been trained from an early age to feel and believe on issues rather than know.

I have followed up the story I did recently on how education globally has been focused on delivering the kinds of minds Paul Ehrlich said would be necessary to put his ecological vision in place. That’s the kind of curriculum and deliberate attempts to rely on erroneous perceptions that Australia unfortunately went to when to when it adopted the socio-cultural approach of interacting rather than a focus on content. Ehrlich’s co-author Ornstein wrote a different book once again laying out how determined these ecological theorists are to preventing students (now adults) from developing sequential thought processes and analytical, logical minds.

“The Climate Institute is an independent research organisation. Our vision is for a resilient Australia, prospering in a zero-carbon global economy, participating fully and fairly in international climate change solutions.”

So basically, and advocacy/propaganda group for alternate energy.

It would be interesting to find out.. a) who they really are, and b) where they get their funding

Erwin Jackson progressed from Greenpeace to the ACF and is now the deputy at the Climate Institute, which is so derided by Clive Hamilton. Strangely, Dr Hamilton does not mention that he used to be Chairman of the Climate Institute, and perhaps this is the real source of his bitterness. That aside, Erwin has been instrumental in keeping the Australian Government’s hand to fire when it comes to climate action

The Climate Institute of Australia is a policy think-tank established in 2005 to encourage progressive policies for managing climate change in Australia. The board consists of a mixture of both academics and business people drawn from rural, scientific and business backgrounds.

Funding for the Institute is provided by the Poola Foundation’s Tom Kantor fund. The current cycle of funding is for five years at a rate of approximately A$2 million per annum.

The primary funding source might be non-government. But follow the money back, I bet there is some taxpayer money somewhere.

No doubt it will be sourced at various levels of government from various government programs – each state has had many different programs, and there are numerous Federal programs for squirreling money away.

I guess Newscorp isn’t such an evil empire after all, if it can spawn a bunch of leftwing think-tanks.

Hang on – isn’t the funding source of studies meant to discredit them? If selling Newscorp publications funded this think-tank, we can write it off as biased ‘hate media’ propaganda, no?
/sarc

This entire gravy-train needs to be comprehensively derailed, wrecked, cut up for scrap and recycled into useful things.

If only I could trust an incoming coalition government to actually disband this infested hive of socialists living off other peoples money and telling their donors how to live their lives. Sadly, I don’t.

For the life of me, I do not understand why Liberal side of politics does not come out with a “direct action” program Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) technology in Australia. Whilst I see no need to take any action on rising CO2 levels, it would be a neat strategic solution to rely less on importing fossible fuels and to export less of our (future) valuable coal to places like China and make our own cheap energy from coal. This would imrpove our balance of payments AND appease the green-genies that beleive in CO2 induces AGW.

The MSM in Australia do not report. They barrack for a side (or cause). e.g. CAGW.
Any journalist with a shred of clear thinking would have produced an article entitled “Government propaganda arm continues CAGW blitz“

25 July: UK Register: Richard Chirgwin: CSIRO seas how Oz could wave goodbye to dirty power
Oceans could provide enough energy to power Melbourne by 2050
Its report, Ocean renewable energy: 2012-2050, finds that the Southern Ocean is the greatest potential energy source because of the strong winds that provide a consistent and large swell to coastlines in the south…
Suitable data could conceivably flow from more recent activities: earlier this month, Lockheed Martin signed up to replace Leighton Holdings as major contractor for US company Ocean Power Technologies’ plan to build a 19 MW facility in Australia.
OPT, founded by Australian-born George Taylor, is planning to build the wave farm for project owner Victorian Wave Partners. If the project goes ahead, Lockheed Martin will provide design, manufacturing, systems integration and supply chain management. The project is due to deliver its first electricity to the grid at Portland in Victoria in 2014, growing to 17 PowerBuoy units by 2017.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/wave_power_research_csiro/

25 July: ABC Lateline: CSIRO looks to wave power for future energy
MICHAEL OTTAVIANO, CARNEGIE: It really takes the energy and the swell of the ocean, uses that energy to drive the CETO pumps which sit on the sea floor. They in turn pump high pressure water ashore to spin a turbine on shore, a hydroelectric turbine onshore to generate electricity.
CONOR DUFFY: This West Australian-based company has a contract to supply power to Australia’s largest naval base…http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3553740.htm

You all remember Copenhagen. That was late 2009. The numbers of people who accepted AGW and wanted action was much higher then.
Yet no political consensus was reached. In fact in Australia, even though both the major parties were in agreement and an agreement was just about to be penned, the Liberals ousted their leader (Turnbull) and withdrew from the process without being hurt politically.

With the exception of rabid Greens voters (less than 10%), even those who (outwardly) want action on CC are happy to relegate the topic well below jobs, health, economy and education. They’d be more than happy if one of the majors shuffled CC to the back burner for a few years.

Equivocation on what to do about CC is the oppositions weakest point. People want decisive leaders even if they don’t agree with that leader. (What kept Howard in for so long).
Abbott needs to take a leaf out of Campbell Newmans book and relegate CC to the back burner (a few enquiries will do that) and many voters will breath a sigh of relief whilst Gillard and Labor will look even more attached to the Greens, the very subject that’s tearing Labor apart at the moment.

A DETAILED analysis of electricity charges has found that the jump in power bills caused by the Government’s carbon pricing plan would be a snack for most families – the cost of a weekly sausage sandwich.

Weekly household power bills on average would increase from $37.49 to $39.94 – a difference of $2.45, or $127.40 a year – according to the Climate Institute.

“This analysis challenges the widely repeated claims that a pollution price will cost households $300, $500 or more a year on their power bills,” said the institute, which based its calculations on a carbon pollution penalty of $25 a tonne.

Is this anything like the Treasury modeling of the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions? That was the shonkiest costing I’ve ever read, and I’ve read and done a lot of costings. If I’d had a consultant do that crap I’d not give them work for the rest of my life.

A Recent survey indicated 87% of people at a Wiggles concert felt the Government took too much tax. With 10% disapproving and 3% unsure. But once it was explained to them that most of this tax was actually given straight back to them and the rest was spent on rainbows and moon beams the approval rate increased to 60%, the disapproval rate dropped to just 35% and most of them were just adults. There were still 5% undecided.

How F**king stupid do these people think we are? A survey of 1,131 of people found 52% opposed the carbon tax, 20% undecided and 28% supported it (note this is less than the Greens and Labor primary vote of about 40%). But hey presto, when the Climate Institute ‘explained’ to these people that ” the money raised goes to low and middle income households, to businesses and towards renewable energy.” support jumped to 47%. They concluded the Government needs to increase their ‘education’.

What the Climate Institute didn’t explain is the 10% raised which will go to a UN fund, that $10 Billion dollars will go to a Clean Energy Fund for Government Investment (and then explain how good the track record has been for the Government in vestment in renewable energy). It didn’t explain the massive cost of establishing a whole new government department to administer and audit the carbon tax; it didn’t explain the carbon price is $23 per ton now but Treasury models expect it to grow to $350 per ton by 2050 ($275 in 2010 dollars) in the Governments own modelling with no further plans for compensation going to households; it didn’t explain that the carbon price is the highest in the world and will put our industry at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and that we are already losing jobs overseas.

So sure, the Government may be able to win a few more supporters with a bit more one sided propaganda, but for how long?

That pompous preening faux intellectual (swan) has been crowing about the latest inflation figures as they are the lowest since 1999.

Once the din of backslapping had died down we find that medical, education, rent and fruit and veg prices have actually increased but it is now cheaper to go on a holiday and buy a TV.
Thats how stupid they think we are.

By teh way i was listening to th drona from Altona this morning claiming that the states should kick in the shortfall in funding the disability insurance scheme (IE the government are broke and cannot afford it) but the Liberal state governments are playing hard ball with her.

I seem to recall Jo having a conversation with Matt “put on another jumper”B about how we have pissed away billions on green crap and so now we dont have enough for real things so i find it interesting that the government now cannot fund a really good idea that will help a lot of people because they have no cash.

That pompous preening faux intellectual (swan) has been crowing about the latest inflation figures as they are the lowest since 1999.

Once the din of backslapping had died down we find that medical, education, rent and fruit and veg prices have actually increased but it is now cheaper to go on a holiday and buy a TV.
Thats how stupid they think we are.

WHAT? Saying that inflation is low doesn’t mean that some things haven’t gotten more expensive! It just means that over all prices are rising slowly

Well it obviously is to Adam – he is probably reasonably healthy, and we know he has received an education of sorts, and he may well live with his mum, so doesn’t pay rent. In which case he might well be buying a new TV every week, just because they are now so cheap.

Yes i noticed that, stupid word cant spell dont worry i have edited the word document and the response is saved in word so no more spelling mistakes for the next time i use it on Smith. This will make your job easier as you wont need to point out the spelling errors next time but thanks anyway ))

The Climate Institute is a Non-Governmental Organisations. It doesn’t get money from the Government

From the Climate Institute’s website, they list their current supporters as including:
- Commonwealth Government Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency (DCCEE);
- Victorian Government Department of Sustainability & Environment; and

- The Energy Efficiency Council; and
- The Clean Energy Council,
both of which also receive Government funding, and are thus acting as a conduit.

The fact you don’tAdam doesn’t know the difference between the Climate Institute and the Climate Commission suggests you haven’t actually understoodAdam doesn’t actually understand what the Clean Energy Act says and does.

And Yes, AS’s , I could have pointed the same survey at the Climate Commission.. but everyone ALREADY KNOWS that they are a propaganda unit set up by the moronic ALP/Green government to sell their MORONIC CO2 tax.

People need to realise that the Climate Institute is basically just the same thing, set up by the businesses wanting to PROFIT from alternate energy with MASSIVE COST but no benefit to the public.

And Yes, AS’s , I could have pointed the same survey at the Climate Commission.. but everyone ALREADY KNOWS that they are a propaganda unit set up by the moronic ALP/Green government to sell their MORONIC CO2 tax.

Again you seem to be confusing the Climate Institute with the Climate Commission.

The Climate Institute WAS NOT “set up” by any government. It is a Non Governmental Organisation that is mainly supported by personal and corporate philanthropy. It even receives support from those ultra left wing organisations like the Westpac bank and General Electric (which makes a lot of turbines for power stations!)

The Climate Commission is a statutory authority set up by the parliament. It’s main role is to give the parliament advice on what future carbon pollution caps should be. But the Clean Energy Act actually leaves it to the parliament to make the final decision on pollution caps.

NOTE ALSO THAT THE BIG ENERGY COMPANIES LOVE THE MARKET-FIXING! surely with LIBOR still unravelling, the Energy Companies and the EU should not be attempting to FIX the price!

25 July: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: UPDATE 2-EU Commission presents plan to boost carbon market
Some in industry support intervention, others oppose it
Poland leads opposition within EU member states
Market drops around 5 percent
The proposals are the latest in a series of efforts to fix a market designed to be the mainstay of the EU’s climate policy.
In the past it has been undermined by scams. Now it is over-supplied by millions of allowances because of recession.
“The EU ETS has a growing surplus of allowances built up over the last few years. It is not wise to deliberately continue to flood a market that is already over-supplied,” Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said…
On Wednesday, the market dropped back below 7 euros, falling around 5 percent from the previous close.
To tackle the surplus, the Commission, the EU’s executive, has decided on a series of steps, which it hopes can offer a solution in time for the next phase of the ETS, beginning 2013.
They include delaying the auction of new allowances and clarifying an article of EU law on auction time-tabling.
There are no firm numbers in the Commission’s draft proposal, although a Commission analysis presents three options — withholding 400 million, 900 million or 1.2 billion allowances over the first three years of the market’s next phase.
“What we have been saying is that the surplus is up to 1.4 billion, but I understand from the technical experts we have to have certain room. You cannot eat up all the flexibility in the system so 1.2 billion as far as they can see, that’s probably the maximum,” Hedegaard told Reuters…
After the Commission’s summer break, the outline proposal and analysis will be debated by officials from all member states at a meeting of the Climate Change Committee on Sept. 19…
Also later this year, the Commission will present its first report on the functioning of the carbon market, which could launch a debate on the deeper reform many say is necessary.
Such structural change could include the permanent, rather than temporary withdrawal of allowances, but it would require much longer political debate…
The prime EU opponent is Poland, which is dependent on carbon-intensive coal. Grateful for the economic reprieve provided by a weak carbon price, it opposes any intervention…
Germany, however, also has a powerful heavy industry lobby.
Reacting to Wednesday’s news, the German economy ministry said it saw no need to intervene, especially in difficult economic times, while the nation’s environment ministry had yet to comment…
A statement signed by a group of energy firms, including Statoil, Royal Dutch Shell and Dong Energy welcomed the proposals…
Others in industry said there was no case to remove permits.
“In a recession, in a very deep economic crisis, of course nobody in his right mind would try to artificially increase this unilateral EU cost,” Peter Botshchek, energy expert at CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council, said…
Benchmark EU carbon was trading down 4.58 percent at 6.87 euros at 1610 GMT.http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/eu-ets-idINL6E8IPCLZ20120725

Most Australians (54 per cent) are still concerned about climate change. This has dropped in terms of breadth and intensity over time but there is still only around 10 per cent who see no need for action.

If only 10% see no need for action on climate change, then that means 90% either think there is a need for action or don’t know if there is a need for action.

That demonstrates that most Australians consider climate change a much more serious problem than many here are willing to admit.

But I’m not willing to pay for it. Because that would be pointless and irrational. Just like the carbon tax, really.

Well the problem the Coalition has got is that their policy would cost much more because there’s no way that politicians in Canberra could choose abatement projects that are more cost effective than those that the market chooses.

So the Coalition would end up spending much more money, which has to be funded through spending cuts or tax increases.

2) – Scrap all funding to QANGO and NGO “climate change” organisations, like the Climate Institute.

3) – Fire all primary school teachers who ever showed “An Inconvenient Truth” as a documentary to their students. Replace them with volunteer Grannies and retiries over 55 who at least will know their times tables and how to spell.

4) – Lower the school-leaving age back to 16, so kids who aren’t interested in becoming lawyers and social workers can get on with an apprenticeship or traineeship.

5) – Raise the age for the dole to 21 and pay parents the child allowance for those for with kids still living at home. If you REALLY want independence from your folks, get a job and pay for it yourself.

6) – Fire all secondary science school teachers who ever showed “An Inconvenient Truth” as a documentary to their students. Replace them with volunteer retired engineers over 55 who at least will know the basic laws and theories of physics.

7) – Audit all companies (through existing tax records) to identify those employing more than 20 qualified tradesman (including via labour hire companies). Match that against the number of apprentices being trained by the company. Where a company is not training an apprentice for every five tradesmen, impose a levy of $10.00 per week per tradesman with the proceeds funding those kids wanting an apprenticeship or traineeship. If Australian companies (especially the mining companies) want a skilled workforce, they should be prepared to contribute to it.

8) – Introduce compulsory resumption of all riverside and ocean front properties owned by people who have used their status to promote CAGW – eg – Flannery, Blanchett, KRudd etc. These people know they have bought lemons – or so they preach. Sell the properties at auction to “deniers”. Use the money to train young kids.

9) – Scrap Supporting Parent’s Benefit (SPB) for everybody with only school-age children. Everybody else with kids has to work or survive on the dole, why not them? Don’t pay any extra SPB at all for additional children conceived after the granting of SPB. It’s meant to be a welfare payment, not a lifestyle choice.

10) – Increase the weekly dole payment and similar benefits to something people can live on, and assess entitlement over the entire tax year, rather than fortnightly. This gives us back all our seasonal workers (fruit pickers, fishermen etc) and would dramatically reduce overall payments at the same time.

.
I reckon those ten steps cut federal and state expenditure by about $80 billion a year, gives people back some responsibility and control over their lives, and solves the “skilled worker” shortage.

11) Go back to bulk funding of Universities, with academics being paid in proportion to student attendance at lectures, completed student assignments, the number of published research papers per annum, and the number of external consulting hours billed per month.

12) Make all Government research assignments contestable, and always conduct blind parallel research across two or three Research bodies, one of which must be overseas, and therefore less susceptible to political pressure.

13) Ensure that all lecturers and research assistants have at least three years practical experience working in their specialised area, and have obtained all of that experience outside of academia, public bodies, political parties, and the trade union movement. This is their “Journeyman Period”, and they are expected to have had a defined number of papers published within this time.

That gives you a Bakers Dozen.

And will hopefully stop the intellectual rot that we currently see in academia, where Doctors and Professors become institutionalised, and introverted, and totally out of touch with the real world, or real people.

The coalition direct action plan is stupid. But if that’s the best that the suffering public can do, it’s better than the alternative, which is a government plan to ratchet up both price and regulatory capture of the carbon tax, which is, by their own estimates, going to send $50 billion a year offshore for zero goods in return.

It will never blow out to $110 billion or whatever fantasy figure has been conjured up. That’s because it doesn’t work, and the primary objective of the policy is to let the public know there is a policy. As it is a direct budget line item, it won’t increase past it’s budgeted amount.

Pretending it will blow out to $110 billion is like saying the health budget will blow out to $1 trillion because lots of people will get sick. Well, no. They might get sick but the spending will be capped, it’s just that health outcomes won’t be the same. Same as the direct action scheme. It will be capped spending, won’t achieve the 5% target, and won’t ever last until 2050.

In fact I hope it gets scrapped before the next election. But one can wish and dream.

The coalition direct action plan is stupid. But if that’s the best that the suffering public can do, it’s better than the alternative,

Wrong. The Coalition’s plan is much worse because it will cost more money while achieving less abatement. It is the worst of both worlds.

which is a government plan to ratchet up both price and regulatory capture of the carbon tax, which is, by their own estimates, going to send $50 billion a year offshore for zero goods in return.

Wrong. The government’s plan involves shifting to a market price for permits from July 1, 2015.

It will never blow out to $110 billion or whatever fantasy figure has been conjured up. That’s because it doesn’t work, and the primary objective of the policy is to let the public know there is a policy. As it is a direct budget line item, it won’t increase past it’s budgeted amount.

Well sorry, but it could blow out to $110 billion if it turns out that the politicians and public servants make particularly bad decisions about where to spend billions and billions of taxes on carbon abatement. ANd of course with Direct Action socialist nonsense schemes, you only find out if a particular abatement project was worth spending money on well after you have spent money on it.

Pretending it will blow out to $110 billion is like saying the health budget will blow out to $1 trillion because lots of people will get sick.

WRONG! You can say it will cost $110 billion over a decade based on the least efficient abatement projects that have been funded over the last decade. You look at ACTUAL policies and the results they achieved relative to their cost.

Well, no. They might get sick but the spending will be capped, it’s just that health outcomes won’t be the same. Same as the direct action scheme. It will be capped spending, won’t achieve the 5% target, and won’t ever last until 2050.

Sorry, but we don’t just need to cut emissions by 2020, we need to cut them every year after that by a greater amount, which means the federal government paying more and more for abatement if you adopt a Direct Action policy. You don’t just end abatement in 2020, it keeps going and it needs to get bigger and bigger each year.

In fact I hope it gets scrapped before the next election. But one can wish and dream.

Richard Denniss is the ANU Economis and Clive Hamilton buddy who Monckton wiped the floor with at the National Press club because all he could say is surely the IPCC and thousands of scientists can’t be wrong.

Graeme Wood is the guy who gave The Greens their biggest single donation.

You have heard of Bob Brown no doubt so you can work the connections.

The Direct Action plan is clumsy. But it does leave us with some value assuming reducing CO2 emissions is a complete waste of time. But I still hate it. The coalition should admit they don’t believe CO2 is an issue!

One,two, 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
bloggers spiel before you,
That’s what I said now.
One has, 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
Coal mines in his pockets,
`aint in his head now, and
One has, 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
Big Oil on her dockets,
`Aint in her head now,

Vote for Them, or vote for me?
I’m the one protecting you, Aussie, can’t you see?
I never learned history and always lunched for free,
So I don’t want your tax dollar getting away from me!
I don’t want your tax dollar getting away from me!
sing it…

If you 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want to price my carbon
just go ahead now. And
If you 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want to water your garden,
it’s just dirt now.
If you 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want to vote Labor later,
just go ahead now, and
if you 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want to roll over maybe,
just go ahead now.
If you, 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want some nuclear power,
just try it on now.
If you, 𝅘𝅥𝅯 𝅘𝅥𝅯
want to troll for hours,
just go ahead nowwww…..

If only 10% see no need for action on climate change, then that means 90% either think there is a need for action or don’t know if there is a need for action.

That demonstrates that most Australians consider climate change a much more serious problem than many here are willing to admit. — Adam Smith

I see my doctor for a checkup. He says my leg is diseased and he needs to cut it off to save my life. So I say, “I don’t see any disease or have any problem. Show me what’s wrong.” His reply is, “Trust me. I know you have a problem and what to do about it.”

I change doctors.

No one would even be talking about climate change if they had not been told there’s a terrible problem looming on the horizon. They can’t see it and have no problem, just like with my leg.

Now when it’s a discussion of cutting off your leg you’re going to be a lot more careful what you believe than when it’s a discussion about cutting emissions because the personal impact of cutting emissions isn’t immediately evident. But cutting off your leg…well that’s another matter, isn’t it?

So let’s put this in terms of the personal impact. Cutting emissions means a return to the lifestyle of a century or more ago. That is where this leads. Make no mistake about it; hardship is going to be the order of the day if it continues. Suffering and premature death will be the inevitable result of going down this road.

Oh dear, it was the one. I should’ve read to thread bottom before replying.

If, Adam, you like that costing you may elucidate us where ‘abatement sourced from overseas’ comes from, what it is exactly, and how they came up with the cost of it. (Hint: Section 5.2.2 is supposed to tell us this but doesn’t.) And why if everyone is buying abatement sourced from overseas to weasel out of getting their emissions down 78% that the price doesn’t hit the stratosphere? How many fake trees would be saved to assuage the guilt of Aussies, Americans, Chinese, Brazilians, Poms when we all put this so-logical abatement into our amazingly accurate financial models? All required stuff in a private industry costing, with full sensitivity analysis, or you’d be out the door pronto.

My comment above stands. If you’d presented this report to any ASX company you’d be laughed at.

If, Adam, you like that costing you may elucidate us where ‘abatement sourced from overseas’ comes from, what it is exactly, and how they came up with the cost of it.

Buying carbon permits from overseas.

Now if you are saying that Australia shouldn’t do this, then you are going to force a higher carbon price for Australians, which means a greater cost to the economy.

I don’t know what the Coalition’s position on purchasing overseas permits is because they seem to change their mind on this issue about once a month.

And why if everyone is buying abatement sourced from overseas to weasel out of getting their emissions down 78% that the price doesn’t hit the stratosphere?

This is a good point. If businesses simply rely on buying overseas permits then this will increase the permit cost perhaps to the point where domestic permits become cheaper. If so that’s what businesses will buy.

But that is the beauty of a market price. Businesses get to figure out what works out cheaper for them, whereas the Coalition’s approach to this issue is for businesses to keep on polluting and for the federal government (read tax payers) to fund more and more abatement.

Adam, you have failed to address the issue, which is ‘tragedy of the commons’ in this case the fact that it is abundantly obvious to anyone with a brain that if we all try to grab the same ‘offsets’ there physically cannot be enough of them. So there is no way that offsets could possibly be only $131/t by 2050 (in 2010 dollars). Not if everyone was trying to buy the same offsets.

So that means the real number will be much worse and an economic costing of any credibility would be so bad it would be political poison. As would be the case if they tried modeling meeting the target with real cuts not fake ones. Which is why Treasury have not provided any detail. If they did they’d be shot down in flames. If they gave the real estimates they’d be shot down in flames too, so I suppose I can empathise with their dilemma a little.

I really do mean this. I’m participating in a feasibility study at them moment and for pricing we’ve sought estimates from at least 6 reputable expert sources, and have done sensitivity analysis on multiple pricing cases. Every feasibility study I’ve ever read has this in it. The Treasury report does not. It has hand-wavingly vague stuff to justify that we can affordably achieve the 2050 target without stuffing the entire economy. It is so ludicrous it has destroyed my respect for Treasury forever. Whoever put their name to this piece of excrement should be shown the door.

Adam, you have failed to address the issue, which is ‘tragedy of the commons’ in this case the fact that it is abundantly obvious to anyone with a brain that if we all try to grab the same ‘offsets’ there physically cannot be enough of them. So there is no way that offsets could possibly be only $131/t by 2050 (in 2010 dollars). Not if everyone was trying to buy the same offsets.

Well I have read the Treasury modelling, but you seem to be asserting something based on modelling that you are yet to make public. When you make your modelling public I will read it and comment on it in due course.

So that means the real number will be much worse and an economic costing of any credibility would be so bad it would be political poison.

Again this seems to be another claim based on your modelling, but since you haven’t provided me with a link to your modelling I can’t determine whether or not it is true.

As would be the case if they tried modeling meeting the target with real cuts not fake ones. Which is why Treasury have not provided any detail. If they did they’d be shot down in flames. If they gave the real estimates they’d be shot down in flames too, so I suppose I can empathise with their dilemma a little.

But you haven’t made your modelling public, hence I am very sceptical about the veracity of your modelling.

I really do mean this. I’m participating in a feasibility study at them moment and for pricing we’ve sought estimates from at least 6 reputable expert sources, and have done sensitivity analysis on multiple pricing cases.

OK, so make this information public so I can scrutinise it.

Every feasibility study I’ve ever read has this in it. The Treasury report does not. It has hand-wavingly vague stuff to justify that we can affordably achieve the 2050 target without stuffing the entire economy. It is so ludicrous it has destroyed my respect for Treasury forever. Whoever put their name to this piece of excrement should be shown the door.

Clearly the Treasury modellings are far more confident in their findings than yourself because you aren’t willing to release your modelling so that organisations, including the Treasury itself, can scrutinise it.

And you say the Climate Institute quotes this report, do they? Oh.

Well they certainly don’t quote your modelling because you are refusing to make yours public, hence I am very sceptical of its findings.

I’d be surprised if this saves more than a few hundred million a year, which isn’t even 0.3% of the federal budget.

2) – Scrap all funding to QANGO and NGO “climate change” organisations, like the Climate Institute.

This is probably 0.01% of the federal budget.

3) – Fire all primary school teachers who ever showed “An Inconvenient Truth” as a documentary to their students. Replace them with volunteer Grannies and retiries over 55 who at least will know their times tables and how to spell.

The federal government doesn’t higher school teachers. Why would people choose to work as school teachers for free? You’d have to pay them, so this saving is actually a new expenditure.

4) – Lower the school-leaving age back to 16, so kids who aren’t interested in becoming lawyers and social workers can get on with an apprenticeship or traineeship.

Students can actually start apprenticeships while still at school. So this wouldn’t save any money at all.

5) – Raise the age for the dole to 21 and pay parents the child allowance for those for with kids still living at home. If you REALLY want independence from your folks, get a job and pay for it yourself.

HA! So you are going to make it easier for parents to get child allowance, so again you have just spent more money.

6) – Fire all secondary science school teachers who ever showed “An Inconvenient Truth” as a documentary to their students. Replace them with volunteer retired engineers over 55 who at least will know the basic laws and theories of physics.

What? You seriously think over 55 year olds are going to work full time as school teachers FOR FREE? You’re dreaming!

7) – Audit all companies (through existing tax records) to identify those employing more than 20 qualified tradesman (including via labour hire companies). Match that against the number of apprentices being trained by the company. Where a company is not training an apprentice for every five tradesmen, impose a levy of $10.00 per week per tradesman with the proceeds funding those kids wanting an apprenticeship or traineeship. If Australian companies (especially the mining companies) want a skilled workforce, they should be prepared to contribute to it.

What? So your way of reducing government spending is to implement a new tradies tax! That makes no sense!

8) – Introduce compulsory resumption of all riverside and ocean front properties owned by people who have used their status to promote CAGW – eg – Flannery, Blanchett, KRudd etc. These people know they have bought lemons – or so they preach. Sell the properties at auction to “deniers”. Use the money to train young kids.

Err what? The Commonwealth can only acquire people’s property “on just terms”, so you have just created a massive new liability for the federal government!

You said you wanted to cut government spending, but you keep presenting ideas that would increase it!

9) – Scrap Supporting Parent’s Benefit (SPB) for everybody with only school-age children. Everybody else with kids has to work or survive on the dole, why not them? Don’t pay any extra SPB at all for additional children conceived after the granting of SPB. It’s meant to be a welfare payment, not a lifestyle choice.

You do realise that when kids turn 5 the parents have to look for at least part time work right?

10) – Increase the weekly dole payment and similar benefits to something people can live on, and assess entitlement over the entire tax year, rather than fortnightly. This gives us back all our seasonal workers (fruit pickers, fishermen etc) and would dramatically reduce overall payments at the same time.

What! You are trying to REDUCE SPENDING, but you just proposed increasing the dole which means HIGHER SPENDING!

.
I reckon those ten steps cut federal and state expenditure by about $80 billion a year, gives people back some responsibility and control over their lives, and solves the “skilled worker” shortage.

Any other ideas?

Absolute bullshit. The net effect of all of those changes would probably be to increase spending!!!!

I’d be surprised if this saves more than a few hundred million a year, which isn’t even 0.3% of the federal budget.

Just ONE of these departments is going to start giving away $10 billion a year on “renewable energy projects”. And you figure scrapping that that will “only” save a “few hundred million a year”. You really need to google “million” and “billion”.

This is probably 0.01% of the federal budget.

And it’s a saving. So your point is . . .

The federal government doesn’t higher school teachers. Why would people choose to work as school teachers for free? You’d have to pay them, so this saving is actually a new expenditure.

No, and they don’t HIRE them as well – which goes to prove my point about spelling. Note I said savings across federal AND state expenditures. States hire school teachers. Not sure if they “higher” them.

They don’t have to be unpaid – I could raise an army of well-educated retirees for $30.00 an hour flat rate, which would be miniscule expenditure compared to what is paid the school teachers for 40 weeks a year work, superannuation, sick leave, (paid) student free days, paid sabbaticals, and all the other lurks and perks. Their main motivation would be boredom and a desire to be doing something useful. Your comment just shows how little you know about us “old” people.

Students can actually start apprenticeships while still at school. So this wouldn’t save any money at all.

No. Nobody can start a REAL apprenticeship in Australia today, regardless of their circumstances. The true “apprenticeship” system has been dismantled. It no longer exists.

HA! So you are going to make it easier for parents to get child allowance, so again you have just spent more money.

No. Actually paying a parent a $100.00 a fortnight to house, feed and clothe their offspring is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying the offspring $500.00 (with rent allowance) a fortnight to live in their own digs “independently”. But understanding that would require you to have a basic understanding of arithmetic, and we’ve already seen your inadequacy in that area.

What? You seriously think over 55 year olds are going to work full time as school teachers FOR FREE? You’re dreaming!

Already covered above – both for “hired” and “highered” teachers.

What? So your way of reducing government spending is to implement a new tradies tax! That makes no sense!

Yes, I see your point. Why expect large companies (especially mining companies) to train, or pay for the training, of skilled workers that they say they need, when we can just hit them with a “resource tax” (which you have supported) and let them bring in cheap overseas labour? There’s plenty of “MacJobs” for young Australians.

Err what? The Commonwealth can only acquire people’s property “on just terms”, so you have just created a massive new liability for the federal government!

These people have already self-declared their properties to be worthless. Surely they would be prepared to cede them to the Commonwealth for a penny in the pound? What else are they going to do with them? After all, they will be flooded within a couple of years.

You do realise that when kids turn 5 the parents have to look for at least part time work right

?

Not really. The reporting requirements under SPB are far laxer than for the dole (and they are pretty lax).

What! You are trying to REDUCE SPENDING, but you just proposed increasing the dole which means HIGHER SPENDING!

Yeah, you’re right. After only three years in the Commonwealth Employment Service – CES (now defunct), and six years in the Department of Social Security – DSS (now Centrelink), as the author of the best-selling book “Dole Bludging, A Taxpayer’s Guide”, and as the man who traveled across Australia defrauding the system in each state and appearing on national television to show how easy it all was, and as the National Policy Coordinator for Welfare in a major political party at the time, what the hell would I know?

The net effect of all of those changes would probably be to increase spending!!!!
Clearly you have no idea how the federal budget works.

According to Joe Hockey’s speech in Parliament, under this Labor government there is $50 BILLION of forecast expenses in a slush fund that does not appear in the public budget. The last time I heard of off-balance sheet transactions this large the name Enron was involved, and they were keen on carbon trading too.

So you see, in Smith Accounting, even if you fully understand the official federal budget inside out and back-to-front, you still won’t understand why all the spending is increasing!

So you see, in Smith Accounting, even if you fully understand the official federal budget inside out and back-to-front, you still won’t understand why all the spending is increasing!

WOAH! Are you seriously suggesting we should take Coalition policy costings seriously, when the accountancy firm that supposedly “audited” the Coalition’s costings was fined because it presenting something that wasn’t actually an audit but allowed the Coalition to repeatedly call it an audit?

THE federal Coalition’s economic credibility has been dealt a blow after a tribunal found that two accountants who costed its 2010 election policies had breached professional standards.

The ruling is an embarrassment to shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who wrongly insisted during the campaign that the accountants’ policy costings had been audited.

Geoffrey Phillip Kid and Cyrus Patell, of the Perth office of accountants WHK Horwath, produced a one-page report for the Coalition on its policies two days before the election.

Mr Hockey said at the time that the pair had certified “in law that our numbers are accurate”.

Advertisement
“If the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on our numbers it is a brave person to start saying there are accounting tricks,” Mr Hockey told ABC radio in November 2010. “I tell you it is audited. This is an audited statement.”

Fellow Coalition frontbencher Andrew Robb also strongly vouched for the costings, saying they were “as good as you could get anywhere in the country, including in Treasury”.

In fact, the document was the result of a carefully worded agreement between the accountants and the Coalition to produce work primarily ”not of an audit nature”.

Dear dear, laddy, you cannot prove the innocence of Labor by proving the guilt of the Coalition. It’s a logical fallacy. The proposition by Hockey was that Labor put 50 billion behind the couch to keep Labor’s costing of Labor’s policy in the black.

1. Tristan Edis – the newly appointed editor of Climate Spectator hasn’t posted a single article since the 19th July 2012! Has he been put on leave? Is there a new editor? Is he doing surveys for The Climate or Gratton Institute?

2. Tristan our resident Greenie – has been prolific since the 19th July 2012! Is there a connection with item 1?
.

Western govts need endless diatribe to feed the dumbed down masses to be enslaved by the criminals that get into power by so called ‘free’ elections.. that are the epitamy of so called democracy that they endlessly spew at the rest of the world (not part of the ‘Western alliance’).

I’ve been busy with a new job but knew as soon as I saw the article and the number of comments that I didn’t even need to go to the thread to read them for confirmation. The subject matter was sufficient to know, beyond doubt, that the Smith [snip] would be bombing the thread.

The elixir from Brother Tim and his brethren offered the solutions to all our ills. It was the remedy to rising temperatures, rising sea levels, the threat of extreme temperatures, drought and lo, it would save the planet for future generations. Glory be!

Just keep reading, it gets better and better. St Tim and St Will were apparently in rare form.

I love the term “Carbon Pox”. It seems to me the term “limited understanding” implies that the enlightened knowledge of the warmists is “unknowable” to a brutish meat eating conservative like me. That sounds elitist and judgemental, which is a sin in the Leftist handbook. Sorry, I forgot, that only applies to non leftists.

The climate institute is a bunch of people who say what their benefactor wants said.Look at the board of directors,no one would take any of their opinions seriously.There quotes are straight from the UN IPCC when they were predicting 7C increase in temperature by 2100.Why do newspapers print the dribble from morons like these,instead of informed comment,like we receive here

Because they are under the mistaken impression that it sells more copies of the paper. Demonstrably it does not.
And (more importantly) because their advertisers have a vested interest in scamming money from CAGW.